Customer Reviews

Einstein, Picasso: Space, Time, and the Beauty That Causes Havoc

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

In this intriguing new book, science historian Arthur I. Miller looks in parallel at the achievements of Einstein in physics and Picasso in art and explores the common origins of each. But first he asks the important question of why--what were they after? No less than the truth, it seems, and a representation of nature--space and time--that went deeper than the side of it we perceive through our senses. He shows how it was basically the same problem for both, and how they went about tackling it, with particular details given as the story unfolds.

The author's energetic writing style captures the spirit of that magic time at the beginning of the 20th century when dramatic changes were in the air--the discovery of X-rays, new developments in photography and filmmaking, breakthroughs in mathematics and psychology. The book shows how Einstein and Picasso responded to these changes, arriving on the scene poor but full of optimism and confidence, with a savvy in picking up on opportunities that Bill Gates would probably admire.

Chapters on Einstein alternate with those on Picasso; occasionally, one man makes an appearance in the other's space (in the form of an observation by the author, because, of course, the two never met). This gives a sense of events occurring at the same time. At one point we see them grappling with questions of simultaneity, framed in this technique. Harold Pinter couldn't have done better.

The stories of their personal lives, and how they influenced their work, are told in a very absorbing way--their poignant relationships with women that often ended in tragedy, the friends they spent time with, the opinions they listened to, the books and journals they read, and the cafes they frequented (especially when their early apartments didn't have kitchens).

A recent Sunday New York Times review aptly likens the book to "an intellectual thriller." The key to the mystery lies in the book by French mathematician Henri Poincare, "Science and Hypothesis," mentioned repeatedly. Picasso was intrigued by Poincare's discussion of the fourth dimension--motion in time--and the author describes how Picasso got wind of it and who explained it to him. Einstein had read a German translation of the book and was impressed with its brilliant mathematics and views on "aesthetic sensibility," and we read how notions of aesthetics were essential to his discovery of relativity.

The author gives due credit to Cezanne's influence on Picasso (After all, who can forget his famous aphorism that everything in nature is modeled on the sphere, the cone, and the cylinder?) Then he shows how Picasso took geometrization a step further, and then some, with a very well thought out analysis of the mathematical underpinnings of cubism that gives a fuller understanding of the paintings.

Arthur Miller draws on his background in physics to show how Einstein discovered relativity. (Math phobes shouldn't worry--there aren't any equations.) He especially goes into how Einstein, rather than relying completely on empirical data, used conceptual thought, which is often a difficult process. It's an approach that goes a long way to explaining why Einstein succeeded where others didn't.

The author supports his views with an abundance of carefully researched information and ties it all together, and doesn't overlook subtle clues. It could take some effort to get through certain parts of the book, but he gives you a great deal of help. He takes you along on the adventure, and in some of the pages on Einstein invites you to do your own thought experiment, using examples from everyday life, such as an elevator ride.

I imagine this book will fascinate a wide range of readers, both scholars and laypersons interested in the ideas that shaped our time, and will inspire lively discussions for years to come.

Miller's book does a splendid job of examining the various influences leading to the conceptual breakthroughs of Einstein and Picasso. Their courage to think differently and to find new perspectives is inspiring and offers insights into the creative process. It is no "easy read" however. Where his book falls short is in the concluding chapter: there he attempts to formulate a theory of the creative process which was wholly unsatisfying and unconvincing to this reader. The first seven chapters were wonderful and make this book worth reading.

The idea that there may be a connection between the appearance of relativity and cubism at the beginning of the twentieth century is not a new one. Though it has been shown quite convincingly that Picasso was not aware of Einstein's work when he and Braque invented cubism, it is still possible to say that BOTH Einstein and Picasso were influenced by some common elements that had appeared in western culture at that time. This, in itself, would be unremarkable; Both Einstein and Picasso lived in the same continent at the same time, it would be very surprising if they did NOT have some common influences. But professor Miller tries to stretch this comparison to the breaking point and well beyond. The result is a book in which excellent summaries of their early life and careers are marred by clichéd and overblown psychobabble and cultural theorizing.
The book is still interesting because it deals in detail with the lives of two such gifted and unique individuals. But the comparisons are frequently forced, and the author seems to have failed to take the advice of either of the masters. Picasso was dismissive of most attempts to retrospectively slot his art into some art historian's version of "influences and phases" and he would certainly have resisted any attempt to "explain" his genius in this manner. Einstein, too, was willing to leave the mystery of creativity unsolved. Mr. Miller would have done well to present us with two separate books about Einstein and Picasso, or one bigger book on the cultural ferment of the early nineteen hundreds. This attempt to find "the secret of creativity" fails to rise above the level of the self-help manuals that crowd our bookshops. Einstein loved music, so music is listed as one of the routes to creative "non-verbal" thought. But the fact that Picasso was never interested in music does not constitute a counter-example for Mr. Miller. Meanwhile, Picasso smoked hashish and took opium with great regularity through this period, but while the slightest hint that he might have heard of geometry is inflated beyond belief, this significant aspect of his life gets only two lines in the book.
Last, but not the least, while science and art are both human products, their natures are very different. Much of Modern art has moved beyond mere representation and become more like music (an esthetic experience which may or may not represent a particular "story") but science is nothing if it's not a coherent story. Einstein rebuilt the foundations of modern science by systematically and LOGICALLY questioning the basic assumptions of Newtonian physics and the discoveries of electro-magnetism. This achievement may have involved intuition and unconscious influences, but it would be useless if scientists could not eventually understand and agree on its meaning. Modern art may well deal with matters even more important than the physical structure of the universe (love, sex, death, loss, meaning, values, rebellion, rage...) but it would not be art if all artists were to agree on its significance and meaning.

What factors can be motivations of a genius's reformative work? Is it possible that the same notions affect geniuses in science and art? What is the daily life of geniuses? What processes are going on when a genius does a monumental work? We often have such questions as above. Arthur I. Miller, Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at University College London, wrote a wonderful book to answer all of those questions and to tell us more about creative activity by the example of the two giants of the twentieth century, Albert Einstein and Pablo Picasso.

This dual biography centers on the special relativity theory discovered by Einstein in 1905 and the Cubism painting "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" produced by Picasso in 1907. In the first chapter, the author mentions that Poincare's book "La Science et l'hypothese" gave a spur to both of the two geniuses and led them to explore new notions of space and time. Tracing their respective lives in later chapters, the author clarifies how both men sought representations of nature that transcend those of classical thought and reach beyond appearances. The reader would be convinced of the fact that the effect of Poincare's book is not a superficial similarity between the works of Einstein and Picasso but a common denominator deeply rooted in the culture and science of the early twentieth century.

In the last chapter the author insists that at the creative moment boundaries between disciplines dissolve. Namely, aesthetics becomes paramount also in science; on the other hand, artists solve problems just like scientists. So, if you are a scientist, you would find direct interest in the chapters on Einstein and also find it profitable to read the chapters on Picasso; and if you are an artist, the reverse would be true. Laypersons would also get a lot of stimuli to a productive life from this book.

This fascinating little book gives intriguing comparisons between art and science. Whether you are an artist or an engineer, you will gain insight into design with this book. I'd like more pictures, but there are plenty to help you visualize the ideas. Interesting stuff.

[...]

I came to this book via interest in Picasso, and found my understanding of cubism, and its relation to the science of the day, were well rewarded by reading this book.

I must assume no other book on Picasso has such a wealth of Picasso biographical detail as it relates to the field of science - the artists close to Picasso were indeed attempting to define in art terms what they knew were the currents of early 20th Century European scientific development, and how that science related to their visual multi-dimensional theories.

The book is written by a true authority in the field, and a fine writer of deep insight in associating artistic and scientific impulse. Quotes and ideas shine thoughout. And I haven't even talked about Einstein! Or how they relate in quite revealing ways. That's what Doc. Miller has done in this singular book.

Mr.Miller is a phenomenal thinker! His observations are compelling and in-depth. Although you may think the subject matter is intimidating, he explains is all with incredible clarity. This book taught me a great deal - the information was accessable to the "non-scientist", and it really changed the way I look at the world. THANK YOU ARTHUR MILLER BRAVO!!!

After reading several books and essays on Picasso in the context of modern art movements, it was refreshing to read such a thoughtful and detailed review of Picasso's achievements from the perspective of how science, and the scientific achievements of his time, affected him and drove him to seek 'new dimensions' in his art. I admit as an art enthusiast I took greater interest in the Picasso chapters than the Einstein chapters, but was truly impressed by Miller's ability to dive so deeply into each of these worlds.

In an attempt to seek commonality between Picasso and Einstein, the author fails to leave the reader with the revolutionary nature of Einstein's legacy; precisely why Einstein's ideas were counterintuitive and what its implications for science were. I was disappointed that I did not get a better grasp of this subject matter than before I read the book (I am not a physicist). Einstein was truly a genius because he was able to predict physical phenomena later borne out by empirical observations. Picasso was at best creative and his "legacy" was a new representation of art that is entirely subjective. The author makes conjectures of Picasso's connection to philosophy and science but this is like saying that Bin Laden and Gandhi are similar because both believe in some form of self determination. Picasso's thought processes appear divergent. This is not genius. The poor explanation of Einstein's theories and its implications results in this superficial equating of genius with the "creative". I suppose in a sense the author has succeeded in showing us that when you equate genius with the scandalous hell-raiser you are bound to come up short. This is injustice to Einstein and scientific thought.
While I disagree with the author's basic premise, he has done a fine job of collecting information about the historical aspects of each person's life, placing them in the context of the sociological environment of the twentieth century . He describes many of the key scientific discoveries of those times and has made me eager to learn more about the evolution of scientific thought and advances.

Miller's central theme is that Picasso, like Einstein, was inspired by the emerging ideas of time, space, and the fourth dimension. In his effort to find parallels in the roles the two men played in their respective fields, the author becomes carried away with twisted logic and hyperbole. He tells us, for example, that Picasso's ideas, such as cutting a piece of newspaper in the shape of an arm and gluing it to a picture of a guitar, were "break-throughs" on a par with Galileo's conception of the solar system. We are told that Picasso's Demoiselles d'Avignon incorporated concepts of relativity and the fourth dimension that the author and his friends found in the work of Henri Poincare. They are said to have passed many hours in a cafe exploring the intricacies of advanced mathematics and physics. One wonders whether a more likely influence on Picasso's thought might have been the drugs he is said to have been taking. In trying to contrive a parallel between the contributions of Einstein and Picasso, Miller overlooks a fundamental difference between science and art. Science is progressive; art is cumulative. Each new scientific contribution builds on what has gone before, replacing old ideas with new ones. An innovative work of art does not make earlier work outdated. It simply adds to a gallery that includes centuries of work by artists in countless different cultures. Thus when Picasso rejected the rules of perspective and painted a nude woman as a geometrical figure with eyes in the back of its head he was not discovering new principles that made all that had gone before obsolete. He was simply introducing yet another mode of artistic expression.